privacy

In the Privacy of my Home – Challenging the State to Arrest me

10 April 2017 By Tim Hewitt-Coleman Leave a Comment

I have quite a full and busy life. So I really don't find time in my daily routine to grow or smoke dagga. But friends of mine, who do find the time, are very excited to hear that the Western Cape High Court has last week seen to it that the chances of armed police bashing down their door and confiscating their favourite pot plant in the middle of the night have now been significantly reduced. To be honest I have, for quite a long time now, considered what herbs people choose to grow in their own gardens or sprinkle on their own muffins to be completely and entirely their own business. The Western Cape High Court judge Dennis Davis has now taken the same view. I've read the judgment. Interestingly, Judge Davis does not seem to be very much of a dagga fan, but he clearly is a big fan of personal privacy and of the constitution of the Republic, that guarantees such personal privacy. In a nutshell, Judge Davis has told the legislature that while they are fee to hold a view on what may or may not be good for society, they are not free to write legislation that deprives us to our right to privacy in our own homes on the basis of very flimsy evidence of possible societal harm (that in this case, is alleged will be caused by sprinkling dagga on your muffins) While dagga laws only bother me on an intellectual on philosophical level, there are other state imposed attacks on my privacy and freedom that do bother me in a much more practical sense. As you can imagine, controls and restrictions on my freedom to express myself in the built environment cause me particular frustration. I have a confession to make. In my back yard, I have a little wooden treehouse that I built in the Avocado Pear tree for my daughter's seventh birthday. I have broken the law in building that structure. I have read the "National Building Regulations Act" again and again. I have read and re-read to regulations promulgated in terms of the Act. I have worked backward and forward through the SANS codes that have been "Deemed to Satisfy" the Act. Believe it or not these documents all confirm that that my daughter's tree house is in fact a "building" that required me to have an approval letter from the Municipality's Building Control Officer before I proceeded to build it. I can tell you that have made no attempt to obtain such a letter. In fact, as an act of public protest, I now refuse to ever … [Read more...]

Previous: More return in rural infrastructure

Next: Sugar Tax, GDP and quantifying quality

Common property rule a violation of privacy?

10 October 2013 By Fullstop Leave a Comment

This week, the Property Poser experts deal with a double dose of queries from readers. The first question concerns a rental deposit, while the second involves the common property in a sectional title complex. In the first scenario, the reader rented a residential property and paid over a deposit. All went well until the reader gave her notice and subsequently vacated the property. The following day, she contacted the landlord to arrange to return the key and get her deposit back so she could use it to cover the rental deposit on her new premises. The reader says the landlord proceeded to tell her that he did not have the deposit and, to make matters worse, did not know when he would be in a position to pay the monies back. The second question comes from a reader who recently bought a townhouse but feels she has no privacy as members of the body corporate access her yard as they see fit. The reader explains that although the yard is enclosed with a wall and gate, she is not permitted to lock the gate as the area forms part of the complex's common property. Furthermore, the bathroom window is close to this entrance and this makes the reader somewhat uneasy as she feels that her privacy is being violated. She would like to know what her rights are. Regarding the first query, Sean Radue of Radue Attorneys in Port Elizabeth says the Rental Housing Act prescribes that the landlord must, on acceptance of the deposit, bank it in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the tenant, subject to certain provisions and permitted deductions. "On the face of it, the landlord has committed an unfair practice and our reader should seek redress under the Act by referring the matter to the Rental Housing Tribunal." Radue says the tribunal was established under the Act to deal with instances such as this. "A ruling by the tribunal can be acted upon as if it was a judgment of the Magistrates' Court and carries the same authority." On the second issue, Radue says it is important to distinguish between the section and common property. "The section is the area that belongs exclusively to the holder while the common property falls under communal ownership." Radue says the walled off nature of the area would seem to indicate that it forms part of the section but this would be easily determined by a look at the sectional plan. "It could … [Read more...]

Previous: Daughter misuses Mother in usufruct swindle

Next: Pet ban gives buyers “paws” for thought

In the Privacy of my Home – Challenging the State to Arrest me

Common property rule a violation of privacy?

Free Press Releases

New Business Listings

Cape Town News